Page 253 - Envoys and Political Communication in the Late Antique West 411 - 533

Negotium agendum

as magister officiorum, would have overseen legations from each of these
provenances. The two specific types of diplomatic receptions selected for
inclusion in De ceremoniis by its compilers possibly were seen as having
germane parallels to their own time, and potentially useful for adaption
to current needs. 18 The passages, however, give brief indications of ar-
rangements for other types of embassies. The account of the reception of
western imperial envoys mentions in passing that they are exempt from
being summoned into the imperial presence within the consistory, as
other envoys are, and that armed guards flank the emperor when bar-
barian envoys are received; both details appear in the account of Persian
envoys. 19 The reference to the embassy sent from Theodahad in 534,
which was led by the patricius and praetorian prefect of Gaul Liberius
and which concerned the imminent hostilities between Constanti-
nople and Ravenna, may suggest that the legation was treated as if it had
been dispatched by an imperial colleague; at any rate, Liberius’ rank was
recognised and equated with the eastern prefecture. 20

Pope Hormisdas, Indiculi
The second prescriptive account of the reception of envoys atCon-
stantinople consists of two sets of instructions, indiculi, written by Pope
Hormisdas: the first to the legates (including his friend Ennodius of Pavia)
he sent to the emperor Anastasius in August 515, the second to members
of a later embassy, also to Anastasius, dispatched in January 519.Both
embassies were sent in an endeavour to resolve the Acacian schism. 21
The legations were provided with a letter to present to the emperor on

18 Cf. McCormick, ‘Analyzing Imperial Ceremonies’, 6.
19 Exemptions of western imperial legates from summons and armed guards: De cer. i, 87 (Reiske
394), cf. i, 89 (Reiske 404–5). Armed guards: above, n. 17; in later Byzantine practice: cf. D. C.
Smythe, ‘Why Do Barbarians Stand Round the Emperor at Diplomatic Receptions?’, in Shepard
and Franklin, Byzantine Diplomacy, 305–12.
20 De cer. i, 87 (Reiske 396). Unlike the reference to the embassies of Isdigousnas, this detail cannot
reflect the personal observation of Peter patricius (notappointed magister officiorum until 539) who
was not in Constantinople at the time of Liberius’ arrival there, but en route to Theodahad in
Ravenna; Procopius, Wars v, 4.17–25 (Peter and Liberius met during their journeys). During this
embassy, Liberius appears to have deserted Theodahad; he remained in the East during the course
of the war in Italy, and was appointed to offices by Justinian; PLRE ii, ‘Petrus Marcellinus Felix
Liberius 3’, 679–70. It is possible that the treatment of Liberius’ embassy may reflect Justinian’s
overtures for support to a leading representative of the Italian administration, rather than con-
ventional treatment of representatives of the Ostrogothic regime; the source, however, does not
indicate that Liberius’ treatment was unconventional.
21
Collectio Avellana, 116 (with Collectio Avellana, 115, 116a, 116b); 158 ( = Hormisdas, Indiculi of
515, 519). A good account of the place of these embassies in the complex negotiations between
Anastasius and Hormisdas is J. P. Kirsch, ‘Hormisdas’, Catholic Encyclopaedia, 1stedn, vii (New
York, 1910), 470–1. Useful summaries of the indiculi in PCBE ii, ‘Magnus Felix Ennodius’, 626
(515), ‘Iohannes 27’, 1076 (519).
227